On Thursday, millions of us will go to the polls to decide how Britain is represented in the European Parliament, but few will have the faintest idea where the candidates stand on issues that affect the food we eat, the air we breathe, the energy in our homes and the chemicals in our environment.

Science is at the heart of our modern world, and it deserves to be at the heart of political discussion too.

To make informed choices on the challenges facing us we need evidence backed up by robust science, but we rarely stop to question how well our representatives support or understand science issues in Europe. When we do, the answers can be disturbing.

All three main parties give commitment to research only a fleeting mention – either as part of Britain's move to a "knowledge-based economy", or one of a raft of measures employed to safeguard the environment. Party positions on subjects such as nanotechnology, stem cell research, genetic modification, agriculture, nuclear research and spaceflight remain unclear, even though the European Research Council is responsible for billions of euros of spending in these and other areas.

Decisions made in Europe will have a tremendous impact on the UK's scientific industry, our research institutions and our healthcare, so isn't it about time we started asking questions about our MEPs' attitudes toward science?

In 2006 the EU's mammoth REACH framework came into force, compelling industry to submit health and safety data on all of the tens of thousands of chemicals manufactured in or imported to the EU – around 90% of which we know little or nothing about. However, Tim Worstall, speaking for Ukip (the UK Independence Party), called this framework "a grossly expensive farce", adding "it should of course be repealed".

The Green Party built its reputation on progressive social policies, but we were surprised by its anti-science stance. It told us that the party is proposing an EU-wide ban on research involving embryonic stem cells, citing the vague possibility of "unforeseen outcomes harmful both to individuals and to society".

As for GM food, the party seeks to ban the importation of any genetically modified organisms into the EU, apparently uninterested in seeing if research produces evidence of benefits contrary to their beliefs, and unaware of the disastrous consequences this would have on British science.

One scientist working with science communication group Evidence Matters, said: "Sharing resources is at the heart of scientific collaborations and by preventing this the Green Party could potentially irreparably harm the collaborative opportunities open to UK and EU scientists. [Its] position betrays a fundamental lack of awareness of the details of modern biological research and displays no understanding of the importance of sharing resources between scientists across countries and continents."

It is encouraging to find that there appears to be a solid consensus between the major parties where we need it most. All agree on the importance of climate change and have comprehensive policies on how to tackle it, from investment in renewables to improved energy efficiency in homes, transport and industry. Likewise they could detail their plans to improve energy security in the face of the EU's infamous dependence on external sources.

The Liberal Democrats could even boast that they helped reduce animal experimentation while still supporting the need to test new chemicals, thanks to an insistence on data sharing.

However, many parties struggled to find their own position on less mainstream subjects.

The European elections need to be about more than immigration and "new rules from Brussels". Science has a role to play in guiding virtually every aspect of government policy. Because of this, it is vital that our elected officials can demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of science policy.

But unless we, as voters, demand clear thinking on these issues from our candidates, science will continue to be the ghost at the European elections.